A little bit of a Re-Set here folks…

I want to thank all of you for your support of my position on the treatment of our veterans. With one lame exception, everyone agrees that this is an outrage. I want to apologize for my ending tone on that post. I have tried very hard to get fired up and speak my mind often without getting into the realm of the vulgar. I thought this was an especially egregious insult from the Obama administration and I vented a little. I will not take it back. I was glad to see my sentiment shared by so many. But I do want to emphasize that while being angry is OK on this blog, I would prefer that we now return to our more civilized and respectful tones in our discussions. I take a lot of pride in providing a forum where all ideas and points of view can be discussed with respect like adults. Please don’t think that I am berating anyone here. I am not trying to do that at all. I just want to make sure that we don’t lose what has made this site work so well. So let’s get back to arguing… Nicely. New post coming in an hour or so!

Like this:

Related

Comments

USW – You and all Veterans have a right to go over the deep end on this one. It is my personal belief that if, by some weird fluke, this thing gets House and Senate approval we will see a drastic decline in volunteers for the U.S. Military. Then His Lowness will do what all the liberals were saying GWB was going to do – – – re-instate the draft. I do not want to even think of what will come about if that happens . . . 😦

Thank you for the comment. While I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY with the sentiment of your ending words, I was a bit shocked to see you put it that way. I have enjoyed my time here and am ecstatic that I have found a place where we can debate these very important idea civilly.

I too agree whole heartedly with you on this subject. my husband brought up an interesting point. If the government is going to break the contract that our veterans have with it then what is to stop our troops from breaking the contract they have with the government? This administration has made it all to clear they don’t give a blue damn about the men and women who have so bravely defended our country. They did that because they chose to, not because they had to and to have that thrown back in their faces is the ultimate insult. I pray that Obama thinks really hard and considers the consequences of this policy proposal before it becomes too late for him to stop it.

..what part of contract with government do you think the government needs to satisfy?

“Stop Loss” was a breach of contract.

“Enlistment Bonus Cancellation” was a breach of contract.

So, go try to enforce your contract with government when the enforcer of contracts is the government.

——

The modern military machine is handsome evil.

Young men and women join for the honor, duty, discipline (and great toys) and protection of their country and families. All noble.

But the Military, as it is today in the form of a Standing Army is a tool of the Government and not of the People.

Whereas the People hold dear the lives of their brothers and sons, and honors those that are willing to defend them – No government in history has respect for its military – how could it? It is not their sons or brothers nor does it hold dear the living.

Government uses the military as its tool, not for the benefit of the people, but to inflict great might and violence upon everyone on behalf mercantilism – for oil, bananas, shipping, sugar cane, etc. – or to assume more power.

If the government believes bananas are more important the soldier’s lives, why would anyone believe this same government cares about those in the military??

I think we have missed Obama’s intent here. By reducing or eliminating vet’s health care, he will cause a massive drop in enlistment and re-enlistment. He is intentionally trying to cripple our military. The same as he has done to our economy.

Fox has a report on the House readies passage of volunteerism bill. Obama said at a Colorado Springs rally, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

I would not be afraid to march and protest in DC today. I don’t believe our police or military would shoot unarmed civilians exercising their rights. I would FEAR this group Obama is trying to assemble and brainwash. Hitler had his “brownshirts”. I wonder how Obama will dress his street thugs?

A question for Black Flag. If you were wanting to conquer America, how would you go about it? No foreign power is strong enough to do so through force, so it would have to be from within.

On “What would you do?” last night, was a great demonstration people succumb to evil.

They hired people to promote a shampoo that grew hair.

Every statement that they asked the actors moved them, slowly, and deeper into deceit and lie – up to a point, had this been immediate and upfront, not one of them would have done the commercial.

But small, patient steps – slowly embroiling the actors into small increments of deceit – all but one went ‘all the way’ with completely, and knowingly, lie as well as promoting something that they knew was dangerous as to be ‘ok’ and safe.

That is how it is being done here.

Slowly the people accept the lies of government – each not much more worse than the last one…. until all that you have and believe in is gone.

But now, there is nothing else left. So you are stuck. Go along – and live – or resist, and probably die.

You surprised me, BF. You actually got it right this time. What you left out, however, is that this method has been taught in small groups throughout this country since the early 1960’s that I know of. Those of us who have been trying to bring this to the attention of our so-called responsible leaders have been shoved into a corner and labeled “alarmists”!

I have been posting on my blog some ideas of how to correct the problems within our government, but I know you are one who believes that a loose and lawless society would be just fine. I cannot imagine how, with the life experiences that I have had.

However, I must give you the kudos that you deserve on this one. You got it right!

1. Faith is just that, a condition of trust without a soluble base. Reason and logic is in fact interpreted differently by each and every individual, what is one mans reason and logic is another mans crime and corruption.

2. You got me. I have been pursuing truth all my adult life. You will not believe how many people I have encountered who live a life of lies(and they are not all politicians).

3. We all have choices. We all go through live making choices by the thousands each and every day. The difference is, are YOU ready and willing to accept responsibility for the choices that you make?

However, MORALS are a set of behavioral patterns agreed upon by either clergy or law that has been deemed over time to be acceptable to all. Without a set of standard morals to reference to, we would be living in total chaos. Example – The child molester believes that it is perfectly normal to do what he/she does, yet just the thought of a child having been molested sickens the rest of society in general. Therefore society deems child molesting to be immoral(don’t misunderstand me, I am using the extreme in order to get my point across).

BF….just exactly what are you entertaining? Whose moral base is acceptable? You must remember that the human infulence on natural law means that the biggest and the meanest survives. Lets not forget that after all we are a society run by humans…must we regress to total chaos before any kind of moral law can insue? I think if we actually study history there has never been a time that moral law ruled the world. Even in the history of the Bible real moral law only worked in the garden of Eden.
I was just wondering what you were preposing.

USW…Every human has their buttons…..no one likes to be bullied, cheated or trampled on. Even the most docile animal will eventually come out of the corner angry when backed up long enough and poked at hard enough. I for one believe you handle this blog in a very excellant manner.I thank you for it being here and for all the work you put into it.

USW,
while it was a bit of an over-reaction for you, I understand your point, and I definitely think it is good to be fired up on occasion. I did a post last week on Obama’s lies so far that was a lot more heated than your post on the same subject. Emotion is not the enemy, as long as it is tempered by logic and rational discussion. No worries on losing that objectivism that people like on this site, you have too much of a body of evidence that you stay rational for anyone to assume otherwise.
Cheers
Jon

I would say that the ‘premise’ of one’s argument could be subjective and open to interpretation – but the logic developed from that premise must be without contradiction, or the conclusions are invalid.

For example, religious study or theology. The premise is that God exists and has intelligence. That is faith and interpretational.

But from that point, the study is logical and reasoned and the purpose of the study of theology is to remove the contradictions within religion – and not necessarily debate the existence of God – it is more to ‘known the mind of God, not debate whether such a mind exists.

Regardless, if we agree on a premise, when one is faced a choice to accept by faith or accept by reason, it is only reasonable to hold reason as the trump of faith, true?

2. You got me. I have been pursuing truth all my adult life. You will not believe how many people I have encountered who live a life of lies(and they are not all politicians).

Good. The pursuit is the goal. Truth is also a matter of perspective – thus, as we peel away one layer after another, a new truth may emerge. The journey is the goal.

3. We all have choices. We all go through live making choices by the thousands each and every day. The difference is, are YOU ready and willing to accept responsibility for the choices that you make?

Great.

However, MORALS are a set of behavioral patterns agreed upon by either clergy or law that has been deemed over time to be acceptable to all.

So, let’s start with this subject then….morals.

I read your example, but remember, we are going softly – let’s get clarity on our basics before we dive into specifics. From experience, it becomes far more interesting.

So, should another man determine what you should or should not do or believe?

—

Amazed1

Whose moral base is acceptable? You must remember that the human infulence on natural law means that the biggest and the meanest survives.

Ah, good point – however, I would suggest this… we have intellect and choice. This stirs the moral pot a bit different then other animals.

Lets not forget that after all we are a society run by humans…must we regress to total chaos before any kind of moral law can insue?

You’re reading ahead…:) I would suggest you engage G.A., Cafe Roper and I with this soft walk – I guarantee will will cross this question – but not to leave you hanging, I will say “No – because we have intellect, we can decide whether we need to regress or not…

I think if we actually study history there has never been a time that moral law ruled the world.

I would suggest the opposite.

By demonstration of observation – it takes years to build a building and minutes to destroy.

By observation – we have cities.

Therefore if evil (that is, violent immoral behavior) was dominate, cities could not exist – nor could civilization. In fact, given the intense asymmetry between time to build vs. time to destroy, if evil was a small percentage of the human psyche, it would destroy civilization. Now, I do not suggest that evil does not exist – just that it is not dominate.

Therefore, I would offer that the underlying base of society and civilization is moral.

First of all you have me at a very small disadvantage. You LOVE to provide rather lengthy and somewhat complicated dialogues. I contend that there is and always have been a certain form of simplicity in this world. Let us agree to keep this simple. First we all must know just what kind of a person is in this discussion;

I am a retired United States Marine, Viet Nam Veteran, former United States Marine Corps Drill Instructor, and former law enforcement officer. To be honest, I have dealt with what my wife likes to call the dreggs of human existence almost all my adult life. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt(pun intended), that a resident evil exists within all human beings. Even simpler = a lock is only intended to keep an honest man honest, a dishonest man will rip through a lock without regard of the consequences because he actually believes that if he can then he should.

The crux of your statement about “we have cities” is without merit. We humans are social beings, we gather together for mutual well being and protection = therefore we have cities, states and countries.

The rest of your argument I dismiss as useless rhetoric. A typical lawyer tactic in the courtroom while in defense of someone he knows is guilty. Sorry, BF, I just call it like I see it.

So, should another man determine what you should or should not do or believe?

Yes and No. No another man should not have the right to determine what you should do or believe. But I do believe that a group of people have the right to determine what rules you must follow if you want to choose to be part of their group and share their space. They should not be able to force you to conform to and be a part of their society. That is your choice to do or not do. But if you choose to be a part of that society that has the rules of the majority as law, then you are making a choice to abide by the laws of that society. Hence why I have always said that you are free to leave the US if you don’t like their rules, but if you stay you have to abide by them. It is never a threat to you that I am saying like it or leave it. It is merely a reminder that you are making a choice to be in this place under these rules. You have free will and freedom of choice to remain a part of this society or not.

First of all you have me at a very small disadvantage. You LOVE to provide rather lengthy and somewhat complicated dialogues.

Whatever advantage appears in my favor, I will not allow it to be a disadvantage to you.

I am honest in my goal.

I seek truth and I have no desire to flood any mind with confusion. I seek exactly the opposite.

I contend that there is and always have been a certain form of simplicity in this world. Let us agree to keep this simple.

Works for me.

So, I, a quick recap of my background, had a short time in the Air Force – my weird heart stopped me from going onto jets, and I today thank the Gods for the mercy of not having to decide whether or not to drop bombs on cities.

Dad was a 35 year police officer – undercover and highway patrol. He agrees with your sentiment – dealing with the 1% of the “dregs” of society, 95% of the time tends to distort ones view of society. It took years before he stopped thinking, on every new introduction to someone, “What have you done wrong today?” He is a hellva a poker player too – probably his ability to ‘read’ people who lie.

He used to come home after a long day, and my younger brother and I would rush the door, and ask “What happened today!?!” – He would respond, with a big smile – “Oh, just fighting crime and/or evil” — Of course, years later when he told his stories, we were shocked – he was!!

The crux of your statement about “we have cities” is without merit. We humans are social beings, we gather together for mutual well being and protection = therefore we have cities, states and countries.

I agree – but they could not stand if we were ‘dominate’ evil, or even basically evil. The ease of destruction vs. the effort of building would make evil an easy victor – if evil was common.

It, therefore, is not common – ie: 1%

However, the question still stands:

Should another man determine what you should or should not do or believe?

USWeapon

No another man should not have the right to determine what you should do or believe.

I agree.

Though I appreciate the rest of your comment, I believe you’re running ‘the horses’ a bit too fast!

So, let’s slow it down a bit, and I’ll address just your next statement …

But I do believe that a group of people have the right to determine what rules you must follow if you want to choose to be part of their group and share their space.

Ok, let’s stop here.

I see this a redundant comment – since any man determines his own belief – whether in a group or singly.

Whether you’re with a group, and I don’t agree – you can’t ‘share my space’ and likewise a group may determine such to a single (or another group).

In other words, since a group has no more and no less rights than the individuals in the group, there is no difference between how a group or individual exercise their rights.

A group of people and an individual, therefore, are peers – equal in all rights, though unequal in numbers.

Therefore, numbers of people do not increase, improve, alter rights nor create new rights. Rights do not change with numbers of people.

So, before you create extensions – all the way to Nation States – on the extent and exercise of rights – hold those ponies, USWep!

So, if being in a group does not change their human rights – when do they have the right to impose their rules upon me?

You sound like my son. I know you are not, but asking me what I did each day is just about what my children did. My answer – “Something I do not want you to be doing when you grow up.” And they are not. Something with computer/electronic communications in the Corps . . . Waaaay beyond my understanding of computers. Daughter is a geriatric nurse, says she is practicing to take care of me when I am old and feeble.. 😉

You ask;
“Should another man determine what you should or should not do or believe?”

My answer – Not on an individual basis. You see, we humans as a group get together and decide what is normal and “morally correct”. Then through a group agreement we all agree to abide by those rules known as laws.

Again you asked USW;

“So, if being in a group does not change their human rights – when do they have the right to impose their rules upon me?”

When you join or are born into the group, you agree to abide by the common rules and enjoy the common rights. If you do not like those rules, then remove yourself from the group – i.e. find another group whose rules you would agree to abide by. Here in the United States, you are free to leave whenever you wish. I left the state of California as soon as I retired, not because I did not like the rules – I am tired of going to a shopping mall with my wife and having to ask some dirtball when did they let him/her out.

However, if this discussion is going to continue in this way, I would suggest that you pick up any news paper (if any still exist, I hear even they are folding now), watch your local news channel and if you live in or near a large populated area like L.A. – well, just count the crimes committed within the last 24hrs. The number and viciousness is on the rise, have been for the last five or so years. And here is another statistic for you; Criminals outnumber police by at least 100 to 1. I would say that law enforcement is the 1% in that equation.

You ask;
“Should another man determine what you should or should not do or believe?”

My answer – Not on an individual basis. You see, we humans as a group get together and decide what is normal and “morally correct”. Then through a group agreement we all agree to abide by those rules known as laws.

By what right does a group determine my rules?

What happens if the group is perverse and evil, must I still obey their rules?

I hold off on a response to the rest of your post – you, like USWep, are heavy-footed on the gas pedal 🙂

The danger of leaping ahead so fast can be demonstrated by a little analogy.

I’m sure you know how to multiply, divide, subtract and add, along with some elementary algebra.

Where x=y,

solve

1/(x-y) = 2

So, we’ve taken some legitimate arithmetic operators and made a couple of formulas. Let’s solve it.

…Multiply both sides by (x-y), so

(x-y)/(x-y) = 2(x-y)

….(x-y) divided by itself = 1

1 = 2(x-y) or 1 = 2x-2y.

…As x=y, replace all ‘y’ with ‘x’

1 = 2x-2x

2x-2x is zero, thus…

…for the final…. 1=0 !!!

We used legitimate math formulas – we applied the legitimate mathematical operators perfectly – and we ended up with a contradiction! We proved 1 equals 0!

Just because we can create a formula out of legitimate operations, does not mean the formula is valid! The danger of leaping ahead is to miss that some formulations are, in fact, a contradiction and need to be discarded.

You find these contradictions by careful analysis, and resisting the urge to leap.

The issue with the formula is, we are dividing by zero. If x=y, the 1/(x-y) ..if we used substitution first, shows 1/(x-x)…we are dividing by zero and creating the contradiction.

So the two formulas, individually, are valid – but are not valid together.

So let’s move slowly in our discussion of moral society, or we risk leaping into a danger by meshing two concepts together that individually maybe be valid – but together create a contradiction.

BF said “we have intellect and choice. This stirs the moral pot a bit different then other animals” I beg to differ…some people have intellect and some people have brawn….the intelletual will try to talk reason into people who are not reasonable……the brawn will try to force submission and while some are talking and some are fighting the criminals will sneek in from behind and steal you blind. The human element is the only thing that prevents true moral law. Moral law has to be enforced…..with enforcement comes the first form of government.
BF Said “Therefore if evil (that is, violent immoral behavior) was dominate, cities could not exist – nor could civilization.” Our cities are the most violent places to live……there is no way criminals will just give into a moral law of behavior….if that were true it would have taken place already. People are by nature evil….not good as you suggest….since birds of a feather flock together the city is their place of habitat. To suggest that humans are inheritanly good means that society makes them bad……that doesn’t fit either that would mean the rich or powerful would never do anything wrong. I suggest that humans are inheritanly evil and that enforcement of laws (thus government) keeps them in check.

Your wrote; “By what right does a group determine my rules?” Answer = When you agree to become a member of that group, IE-You agree to abide by the UCMJ when you enlist/join a branch of the Military.

“What happens if the group is perverse and evil, must I still obey their rules?” Answer = If you knew that, then why did you join that group?

“I hold off on a response to the rest of your post – you, like USWep, are heavy-footed on the gas pedal :)” Answer = Why waste time and effort dribbling on rhetoric when it carries no meaning for the end result, that is except to boor and frustrate your debating challenger – which I am not.

You know and I know that there is no such thing as a “Peaceful Natural” law that all humans would abide by. Homo Sapiens – which is what we are – is not a grazing animal, but a pro-active carnivore (since you already determined that we humans are animals) That does not naturally co-exist with any other species on this planet. The quiet and peaceful Bovine has become our main food source here in the western world, we slaughter them by the millions annually. So, my friend, my final question to you – and please think very carefully before you answer – is this; If we humans would very suddenly become that peaceful grazing animal, like the Bovine, then just who’s dinner plate would we end up on?

US,
I too, need to apoligize for my language that I used in response to your blog. I think you were entirely justified in your reaction but I will not say the same for me. I should hold myself to a higher standard than what I did that day. I lost my temper because of my Daddy who is a Disabled Veteran. I love my Daddy like all children should when their parents have sacrificed all to raise them right and teach them to be good citizens and better yet good Americans. I would do anything for him and still feel like I haven’t done enough. This is not an excuse, but a reason for why I got so upset. I am glad that this legislation hass been trashed, but am not so sure it won’t be snuck into another big bill where it can be passed like the Stimulus before anyone can catch it.

the brawn will try to force submission and while some are talking and some are fighting the criminals will sneek in from behind and steal you blind. The human element is the only thing that prevents true moral law. Moral law has to be enforced…..with enforcement comes the first form of government.

Before you leap to a ‘solution’, let’s clarify your complaint.

You are saying, if I may paraphrase:

1) there are those that use violence to obtain their needs, wants and desires.

2) using violence to obtain needs, wants and desires is immoral.

Would you agree with these two statements?

G. A. Rowe

Your wrote; “By what right does a group determine my rules?” Answer = When you agree to become a member of that group, IE-You agree to abide by the UCMJ when you enlist/join a branch of the Military.

They still do not have a right to determine my rules.

As you’ve agreed already, I determine my rights.

You cannot, logically, have two equal determinators of a right – there exists a potential of conflict with two concurrent thoughts.

Therefore, there must be a superior – the one that chooses between the two (or more) thoughts. That is me.

It is, always at all times, my right to chose my rules.

If I chose not to follow a rule of a group, they will chose not to give me their benefits.

All the “rules” of a group provide is the established information on how to obtain the benefit of the group. If I do “X”, I will get “Y”. If I do not do “X”, I do not get “Y”.

“What happens if the group is perverse and evil, must I still obey their rules?” Answer = If you knew that, then why did you join that group?

“I hold off on a response to the rest of your post – you, like USWep, are heavy-footed on the gas pedal 🙂 ” Answer = Why waste time and effort dribbling on rhetoric when it carries no meaning for the end result, that is except to boor and frustrate your debating challenger – which I am not.

Because, as demonstrated, there are assumptions that you may be making that may not be valid.

This is common. Many people have been given assumptions without discussion or understanding, and have marched on with these assumptions right into trouble.

You know and I know that there is no such thing as a “Peaceful Natural” law that all humans would abide by. Homo Sapiens

There is, however, Natural Law by which all humans abide.

One of the primary natural laws is:

What you do to me, give me the right to do you

That does not naturally co-exist with any other species on this planet.

I strongly disagree. In fact, we perfectly co-exist with other species on this planet.

The quiet and peaceful Bovine has become our main food source here in the western world, we slaughter them by the millions annually.

That is our nature.

By your logic, a Lion is not does not co-exist with the Antelope because it feeds on it.

So, my friend, my final question to you – and please think very carefully before you answer – is this; If we humans would very suddenly become that peaceful grazing animal, like the Bovine, then just who’s dinner plate would we end up on?

We are not talking about “Peace”.

We are talking about “Moral Society”.

One does not necessarily beget the other.

One can achieve Peace and be a Slave. However, slavery is not moral.
Check.

Only with humans as the DOMINATE species. We humans also prey upon one another, ad infinitum. We have since the dawn of time. We group together for mutual protection not only from other species on this planet, but mainly from ourselves. First in family, then in groups (tribes) then in cities, and now in nation states. But then I am repeating myself.

Mankind is his own worst enemy, without grouping together and agreeing on a common set of rules(moral behavior), we prey upon one another incessantly.

Maybe YOU as an individual do not like the common rules that we have here in this grouping because you contend that you do not want anyone else setting down rules for you to follow, but as long as you live in our midst, by our law, you must abide by them.

It would be your choice to either stay here in our group (which you would have to agree to abide by our rules in order to do so), or to leave and find another group more to your liking. Unless you find a deserted island somewhere and live out your existence in solitary, those are the only two choices that you have.

1) there are those that use violence to obtain their needs, wants and desires.

2) using violence to obtain needs, wants and desires is immoral.

Would you agree with these two statements?

No I do not agree totally with those statements….Yes there are those who use violence, but there are those who use non violence they use corruption. Moral law say you do not use violence or corruption to infringe upon another. So under a straight moral law, if you steal, I hang you! What if I am corrupt and just said you stole? My thought are that human are basically evil that left to their own devices it becomes as the lions in the wilderness….only the strong survive. Now if moral law is enforced law,you then have your first form of government. Wisdom of humans dictates that left to our own devices without regulated structure we become as animals…if you do not believe it looks at the gangs.

BF
If someone walks onto my land steals my cow while I sleep…it was a non violent act….if he walks into to my unlocked home and steals my possessions while I am not home that is a non violent act….but it is corrupt. So under your premise it is ok as long as they did it without violence. That is not correct….thou shall not steal.
Who am I going to “prove” to that you stole my cow? another person perhaps? Then once again you have your first form of goverment…..a judge, and that “judge” would be enforcing moral law.
Remember….I was not arguing for a moral law….I said that people would not live together without some form of government.
The answer to your last guestion “whose moral law would be so perfect you would use violence to enforce it?” LOL why all humans would say “why my moral law needs to be enforced!”
Thus back to my same premise…does not matter whose standard or what standard humans try to uphold…humans are basially evil and without some form of government we will be back to the survival of the strongest. Gang mentallity eventually kicks in.

Ok…no human has the right to initiate violence against another. Except in the instance of stopping them from doing violence to another. I don’t believe in standing idol while someone commits violence on another. Doesn’t matter if it is bullying or out right violence….I won’t stand back and watch it.

The universe sees us no particularly different than a mouse or a polar bear.

We humans also prey upon one another, ad infinitum.

So do monkeys, lions, and thousands of other species.

We are not unique in that area.

We have since the dawn of time. We group together for mutual protection not only from other species on this planet, but mainly from ourselves. First in family, then in groups (tribes) then in cities, and now in nation states. But then I am repeating myself.

Hmm, no.

Nation states are not tribes. Again, in your rush to conclusion you make an unsupported assumption.

SLOW DOWN. You’re making mistakes in your reasoning by leaping and by not showing your reasoning.

We said we would go softly and without confusion. Please live up to your side of the agreement.

Mankind is his own worst enemy, without grouping together and agreeing on a common set of rules(moral behavior), we prey upon one another incessantly.

No, we don’t. As natural herd animals, we cannot both group and prey upon ourselves at the same time

Here is a perfect example of your rush to conclusion creating a contradiction.

So..SLOW DOWN… you’re starting to move to irrational arguments.

but as long as you live in our midst, by our law, you must abide by them.

You contradict yourself.

You said at the beginning that a person makes his own rules by his right.

Now, you say that a group decides that.

Which is it? You cannot have both a group deciding my rights and me deciding my rights.

It would be your choice to either stay here in our group (which you would have to agree to abide by our rules in order to do so), or to leave and find another group more to your liking.

I do not need to “leave” anywhere.

A group is an entity, not a place.

SLOW DOWN. You’re starting to shutter within the boundaries you’ve set for yourself.

I will not go point by point. Why? Mundane rhetoric and pointless – take the pun if you like.

I do not deal in suppositions. I deal in facts.

The facts speak for themselves: Southeast L.A. is in the midst of a city, and gangs prey upon those who wish to live in peace and harmony on a daily basis. Any large city in this country, and many other countries, have the same problem. Gangs. Humans incessantly preying upon other humans. Those are the facts. The only way to get away from the gangs is to pack up and move, then hope and pray that the gangs don’t move to where you have.

And don’t talk about the failed “system” of police protection. You know as well as I do that law enforcement cannot protect those who do not let us know who and where the criminals are. We are not mind readers. We do not have a magic wand.

Humans have grouped together since the dawn of time. We group together in geographical areas, ie cities and countries, etc.

YOU as an individual have the choice of staying in this group (U.S.A.), and by doing so MUST agree to abide by our laws and moral standings. If you do not want to remain in our group, then we give you, as an individual, the right to leave and go wherever you like. As long as you remain in our group, you MUST abide by our laws. THAT is what groups do. they make common laws and rules that everyone who is in or joins the group must abide by. THAT IS THE HUMAN CONDITION.

I am puzzled that anyone with your level of education cannot understand that simple concept.

Really, BF, it really is not complicated at all. I do not understand why it is that you want to make things so much more complicated than they really are?

We humans make choices. We choose to live here, or go there. We choose to abide by the local and national laws, or not. What ever our choices are, we as individuals must accept the responsibility for the results of the choices we make. The only complication there is our dilemma of what choices to make. Nothing more, nothing less.

I will not go point by point. Why? Mundane rhetoric and pointless – take the pun if you like.

It is usually at this point where there is disengangement.

You have no reasoning – merely jingoisms in reply.

You have dogma that you have lurched on to for all your life – and you will not change them – no matter how contradictory, evil or irrational they may be.

You use examples that demonstrate the failure of your system as proof you need your system – and you don’t even see it.

And don’t talk about the failed “system” of police protection. You know as well as I do that law enforcement cannot protect those who do not let us know who and where the criminals are. We are not mind readers. We do not have a magic wand.

You claim you hold facts – claim you need the system – then claim the system has failed – but excuse the failure by saying, “Well gee whiz – we can’t do it”

How many contradictions can one guy put into one paragraph.

Humans have grouped together since the dawn of time. We group together in geographical areas, ie cities and countries, etc.

That’s not the point, G.A.

We are discussing MORAL remember. That is an intellectual concept – you raised it, not me.

Perhaps my mistake was to assume you actually wanted to discuss what and where morals come from – but you do not.

You do not understand ‘moral’ at all.

YOU as an individual have the choice of staying in this group (U.S.A.), and by doing so MUST agree to abide by our laws and moral standings.

No, I do not HAVE TO agree at all.

I do not have to agree to words written on a paper by a man and be his slave.

Question:
IF the law said that left-hand blond people need to be killed, would you do it?

Why or why not?

If you do not want to remain in our group, then we give you, as an individual, the right to leave and go wherever you like.

When a thief is stealing my couch, claiming that I can abandon my house is not a moral option.

As long as you remain in our group, you MUST abide by our laws.

No, I do not. See my question above.

So you are claiming if the law said that you had to arrest all the Jews and send them to the gas chamber – you would do it?

Why or why not?

THAT is what groups do. they make common laws and rules that everyone who is in or joins the group must abide by. THAT IS THE HUMAN CONDITION.

Do you agree if 10 men voted to take your house, and they said you had a vote too – you’d agree to their decision?

Why or why not?

I am puzzled that anyone with your level of education cannot understand that simple concept.

Because your concept is a massive contradiction. There of the same genre of “Black=White” “True=False “Peace=War”

Really, BF, it really is not complicated at all.

Jingoisms and contradictions are not complicated at all – this is true.

They are simple, because they are immune to proof.

I do not understand why it is that you want to make things so much more complicated than they really are?

Because reasoning and logic takes time and thinking – which you want to avoid at all costs.

I could stand back, equally, and yell “Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!” and insult you too. And then say nothing more.

You’d read and ask yourself – well prove me wrong.

And if then my response back was what your giving me “Oh, G.A. grow up, its not complicated” – what would you think? You’d think me a moron.

So, I offer thinking – because thinking PRECEDES action. If you don’t think, your actions are not going end in consequences of your design.

You always like to throw out this left handed blonde thing. Can we stop asking stupid questions. I know you feel you are making some sort of point here, but you are trying to think in ideals. No people would not obey that law because it is morally wrong. If a group didn’t find that doing so was morally wrong, then they wouldn’t need a law to make it happen would they, they would be homicidal maniacs. I just tire of that question when it doesn’t help the argument along.

Say a scientist developed a Right-ometer, a device that measures human rights.

He puts one by me – and up it goes to a value of “1.0”. He puts one by you, and up it goes to exactly the same value – “1.0”

He has you create and declare the existence of the Rowe Group, and the scientist puts a Right-ometer with that group – with you as its only member right now, it reads… “1.0”

The scientist entices other people to join the Rowe Group….1, then 5 more, then 10 more, then USWep Group merges with the Rowe Group, now its in the thousands….

The scientist checks your personal Right-ometer and…lo! it reads “1.0”! It hasn’t budged at all! He checks the Rowe Group Right-ometer and it reads “1.0” too! Not even a shudder of a motion…rock solid stuck on “1.0”

The scientist entices people to leave your group and join the Flag Group and he diligently records the readings on your Right-ometer and the Rowe Group Right-ometer as they leave….and his table has 5,000 or so entries in both columns all saying….”1.0″!…all the way to you all by yourself again.

He entices you to join my group, taking your Right-ometer with you.

As you join the Flag Group, he notes your Right-ometer and it says….”1.0″!!

With you in my group, he checks the Flag Group Right-ometer and it says “1.0” … he checks mine, and it says…”1.0″!!

With no one left in the Rowe Group, the scientist checks the Rowe Group’s Right-ometer, and it says …”0.0″.

What does the scientist make of all of this?

It does not matter if you are alone or in a group, your rights do not change.

A group has no rights on its own, it only has rights of the members of the group.

The rights of a group does not change depending on the numbers in the group greater than 1.

It only takes one member in a group gives the group all its rights.

There is no difference in rights between a group with members and an individual.

So, mathematically, we can formulate this.

Let “X” be a group.
Let “Y” be an individual.

Therefore, X=Y

I refer you back to my math analogy above. I chose it purposely (if you haven’t figured that out already).

You want to create a complex formula of
‘this divided by the multiples of that’ to equal something – a moral society.

And like my analogy, you create a formula with some operations in it – and it appears to you to be valid.

But you assumed the 10y=x — that 10 people have 10x more rights than an individual. And you plugged this into your formula and came up with “rules” and comments like “have to follow”, etc. Which all seemed valid to you.

However, Y=X is the truth. And like in my analogy, when you use this into your formula, you came up with “1=0” — a contradiction.

A group and an individual have exactly the same rights.

Thus, when reaching conclusions from a discussion on what a group can do, you can logically substitute in “individual” perfectly, and exactly the same conclusions that you derived when you were talking “group” come out of “individual”.

Thus, when you say “a group can place rules on me”, you are equally saying “E. A. Rowe can place rules on Black Flag”.

You said (after all that useless rhetoric) “A group and an individual have exactly the same rights.”

Wrong.

If an individual joins a group, then that individual becomes subject to that groups rights.

An individual cannot protect himself from a group. Yet a group can protect themselves from an individual. That is why we humans group together.

Hmmmm. Methinks you watch too much of the program “Numb3rs” on television. 😉 Go to my blog & play the video I posted there last night. You might find it useful and relaxing.

I am not a mathematician, not even with a scientific calculator. Mathematical formulas just fog up what little brain matter I have left after all these years. I just read a science journal report that our brains decrease in function after the age of 27. That age was a VERY long time ago for me . . . 🙂

Just as important… where did the individual get his or hers? I know you will say that they were born with those rights. But the argument could be made that we are just another animal on this planet. Other animals are not born with the same rights. So why humans? A wolf isn’t born into the individual rights, it is born into the rights granted by the pack. What makes you any different. I am not saying you don’t have them, just playing a bit of devil’s advocate here.

LOL BF
You are running me crazy…..if that is your intent, you are well on your way…reminds me of my kids saying “why is the sky blue”……anyway I was assuming that if I was witnessing I would know who was the attacker and who was the defender. What is your reaction when you hear your kids fighting and when you go to break them up one say “she started it” and the other says “no he started it”?
If you see a man knock a woman in the head and grab her purse it is not hard to figure who the attacker is.

Ok BF
I think I fell for this one hook line and sinker…I believe that no one has the “right to initiate violence” Now what ya gonna do with all the violent people in the world? Especially when they think “they have the right to do as they please” Not everyone has morals or applies moral law to their life.

3) You decide what law is immoral for yourselves.yet
4) You refuse to accept that other people decide what law is immoral for them.

The blondes…

Because many don’t like the Nazi Germany laws analogy to demonstrate their lack of position – because they don’t like being compared to Nazis – they still hold the same base attitude – you must follow the law.

So to not have to invoke the aghast of Nazism, I simply reinterpret the situation using left-hand blond people.

It’s the same issue – selecting a particular minority of the population and subjecting them to abusive, immoral law made by a majority.

Now, my Dad is very much like G.A. – as I said once before, his core principle is “order” – so he did admit that if the law said to arrest left handed blond people, he found himself saying “Yep, because that is the law”. Though he found himself disgusted with himself, he admitted that he would be able to do the task – because he is a Law and Order guy.

I can’t argue with that, because that is his core principle. Everyone has the right to chose their own principles – all I demand is that you are consistent with them. He is.

But I haven’t seen you consistent with what I assume are your core principles as with G.A. – you both want a moral society, but are willing to use immoral tactics to achieve it.

I assume, of course, because neither of you have articulated a consistent core principle at this time. I can only surmise based on your past discussions.

Just as important… where did the individual get his or hers? I know you will say that they were born with those rights.

Correct.

They come from Natural Law.

Your human rights derive directly from this natural law:

What I do to you gives you the right to do it to me

The Law of Mutuality of Action is the source of all human rights.

If I hit you, you have the right to hit me – called self-defense.

Therefore, Freedom actually is the absence of me doing something to you without your consent.

So, using Mutuality of Action, if I don’t hit you, you have no right to hit me.

If I don’t do anything against you, you have no right to do anything against me.

And then, we both are truly free.

However, there is another Natural Law, the opposite reaction of the other – Might makes Right.

If I’m a lot bigger than you, I’m not so worried about your Mutuality of Action – I hit you, and your reaction is pint-sized pinch, I keep hitting you until you submit.

Mutuality tends to require equality in some manner. You can achieve equality in the Mutuality of Action by increasing your strength, or by your intelligence in creating weapons, etc.

As long as the “Might is Right” crowd attempts to tilt the playing field, this is the chase.

This chase created Government – the organization and application of massive centralization violent power and determiner of the ultimate “Might is Right” doctrine.

Thus, as the individual improves his ability to resist Government – thus, enforce his Mutuality of Action – it increases Freedom.

Mutuality of Action also defines ‘revenge’ as a human right – “eye for an eye” doctrine derives here too.

However, humans have intellect.

When can judge our actions as moral or immoral – and we have the ability to make reasoned and rational choices.

We have evolved, with reason, that the Migh doctrine contradicts Freedom doctrine.

Intellectually, we understand that if I want freedom, I must also give it to my human brothers and sisters too. Thus, I cannot overrule their freedom by Might – or they will seek to find great Might against me and thus threatens my freedom.

We cannot hold both the “Freedom Doctrine” and the “Might Doctrine” at the same time.

However, my demand to understand your core principle is rooted in seeking the Peace Doctrine.

Though I cannot hold both the Freedom Doctrine and the Might Doctrine at the same time, two individuals could hold one or the other at the same time.

If we wish to both live together, while holding on to two, opposite, doctrines – we have to create a new Doctrine – called the Peace Doctrine. Peace Doctrine dervies from the Natural Law (of course) of “I want to live and not die”.

Somehow, we have to work on areas that we seek in common and attempt to avoid areas we have in conflict. If we fail, one of us would have to die. If we both hold the Natural Law of “I want to live”, then we need to intellectually work to avoid killing each other.

As you see above, there are Natural Laws that you avail yourself upon that may derive into a completely different set of principles then mine. Who is to say yours would be ‘wrong’ and mine ‘right’, if you derived yours equally from Natural Law as mine have?

So, that is why I insist (constantly) on understanding those principles.

Because the universe is perfectly consistent and refuses contradictions, the consistency of your position and argument in honor of your core principle is my only demand. When I see you in contradiction with (at this time, your assumed core principle) is when I verbally reprimand your position.

So, when you appear to hold the Do unto others as ye wish them do unto you crowd (where I am), then for some points switch into the Might is Right crowd for other issues – I see inconsistency.

You cannot hold both of these positions as a core principle – it is one, or the other OR you must offer some rational, reasoned and logical explanation for the flip-flop.

Knowing your core principle and your reasoning helps define for other humans the areas of commonality and of conflict. When we clearly understanding these areas, we can work hard together to cooperate where we can, and avoid each other where we cannot – and avoid a conflict that would kill one of us – or in today’s world of MAD, potentially all of us.